tl;dr, you don't alter (much) the balance between supercarriers and dreads since supercarriers are supposed to be anti-capital, but you make supercarrier pilots have to decide on their role at the fitting screen rather than a single omni-fit for every occasion, and increase the supercarrier's vulnerability to subcapitals (particularly dictors/hictors) so that they need a proper support fleet to bail them out if they get into trouble.

Yes. For example, that idea is good.

However, any change that would limit their usability will be good. Currently SCs are used for:- killing capitals- killing sub-capitals- shooting POSes- attacking systems- attacking stations- hotdrops- PvE (well, before they removed Sanctums anyway)

In one word, they've become the ultimate "I win" button in the game. No matter what situation you use them in, they are simply the best tool for the job. Plus, they don't have anything that can fight them except more SCs, and that is only if you don't pack enough of them in the system to lag it out, so the opposing force can not even get in the system. That's wrong.

Posted - 2011.05.05 09:57:00 -
[153]
Some interesting posts in here so far. Here's what I'd like to see.

1) Destroy the tier system for frigates through battlecruisers, per the proposal linked early in the thread. Having tiers just doesn't make sense anymore now that ISK is much easier to acquire than it was back in 2003. Remove tiers, boost the capabilities of the lower tiers to the top tier, and increase build costs to the top tier.

2) Examine the ship lineup to ensure that all ships serve a distinct role for their race.

3) Revamp Gallente. Most people point to Hybrid weapons, especially blasters, as a major reason why Gallente currently suck. One of the devs said that blasters were meant to fill the short-range/high-damage weapon role and they still work fine in that role. I mostly agree that the problem is not blasters, but the ships they are fitted to.

However, there are some tweaks that should be made to blasters, mainly a slight boost in tracking. It's absurd that autocannons out-track nearly all of their blaster counterparts considering the enormous differences in range. I also love the idea, presented earlier in this thread, of making blasters a low RoF/high alpha weapon. This would certainly add some flavor to short range weaponry as that role doesn't currently exist. Finally, since blasters are so sensitive to range changes, reduce their reload time to 5s so they have a bit more flexibility to adjust to different ranges.

For blasters to be effective, they need to be on ships that can get to their target quickly and hold them while they apply their DPS. Several game mechanics changes have made this task far more difficult than it was in the past, especially for larger ships, namely the speed/agility nerf, the web nerf, and the warp scram buff. Compounding the problem is the fact that buffer tanking has become increasingly necessary to counteract the larger groups of enemies that one faces now compared to the past. Since armor buffer tanks reduce speed and agility, the problem just gets worse. Here's how I propose to fix blaster-focused ships:

Blaster ships require speed and agility. Armor tanks reduce speed and agility. Therefore, blaster ships should not armor tank. Minmatar are a mixed-tank race, so we know it can work. Gallente should be a mixed-tank race, too. Change the following ships to be shield tankers: Thorax, Deimos, Brutix, Astarte, Megathron, and possibly the Hyperion. (Changing the Hyperion would mean that there would be no active-tanking armor battleships and, with the exception of the rigs, at least it can active tank without losing much speed and agility.) For those ships, swap low and mid slot count, swap armor and shield amounts, change ship bonuses where needed (like Astarte's armor rep bonus), and adjust powergrid and CPU to account for the change. That simple change will make the ships far more agile and also leave more low slots available for damage mods to help the ships fill that high damage role.

Focus on making Gallente the most agile race. Acceleration and short sprints are more important than top speed. If a blaster boat has to travel long distances, it's probably going to die anyway either from a lack of capacitor, or simply that it cannot make up the damage difference once it finally gets into range. Minmatar should still be the fastest race, but Gallente should be most agile to help fit their role. In addition to boosting base agility or reducing mass, other ship bonuses could be introduced to boost agility, like a reduction in the mass addition from MWDs and Afterburners.

Fitting ability on many Gallente ships seems to assume that blasters are still king of the hill, so they can be hard to fit. The Hyperion is the best example of this: single rep + 8 neutron blasters, + MWD + Cap injector = 15% over power grid capacity. That's just ridiculous compared to the other tier 3 BS, especially the Abaddon. Gallente fitting requirements should be reviewed.

Originally by:GynocerosSome good ideas and some ones some i dont totally agree with

1. the tier system is there for a reason and its not just for isk cost... you really want a bb to have the same hp as a moa/caracal? so the tier system should stay... but i will agree on simular ships that are combat should have the tier system removed... Like Moa/Caracal or drake/Ferox...

2. cant argue with that, suported

3. i like that you liked my idea about atry blasters... but dont forget rails too they also blow... the other day i was in a drake fleet in a rail thorax and i was doing something 300 alpha on the other drakes... either increase alpha on rails or make them high dps long range autocannonsI also like the idea of a 5 second reload time...

4. both us think gallente need to be faster/agile but i still think gallente should be armor...for me the way to achieve faster gallente should be in bonuses to the mwd... 1st reduce the mass of all gallente ships2nd change the cap reduction bonus and 10% to fall off to a mwd mass addition reduction... make it 10% per lev... now you have fast agile gallente ships3. remove the tanking bonus from gallente ships and replace with w 10% to armor amount per lev... now you wont have to put on so many trimarks/1600's to havge good ehp...

4. if you are going to fix the speed isues and boost blasters/rails there is no need to fix fitting issues as it would more then likely make gallente op...

Well I think we first need to look at weapon balancing and then move onto ship balancing around weapon systems. So....

Weapons:

Guided missiles (Light/Heavy/Cruise) need to have their flight time nerfed. To compensate. New modules similar to tracking enhancers and tracking computers to be introduced to bump the range back up. This would go a long way to balancing out the Drake/Tengu problem but won't remove the strategic and tactical value of the weapons either.

Turret Ammo: The current ammo with variations on range and damage (and a small cap difference) pretty much means that out of 8 different ammo types, on average, two types are used (max damage and max range). Ammo needs a rework to remove this 75% redundancy of ammo. Differing ammo should offer vastly different bonuses. If there was an ammo offering a high ROF and some ships had their bonus changed from damage to ROF this ammo would be more appealing vs just a high damage ammo. TLDR: Look at ammo and see if ALL ammo can be useful instead of a small portion of it

Hybrids: Balance this after the ammo rework.

Ships:

Frigates/Cruisers:

Remove the tier system and introduce a role system but don't super specialise the hulls.

Destroyers: General rebalance of stats and buff to make them real frigate killers. Maybe even a T2 hull that can "ping" for cloaked ships. There is a demand for it.

Battle CruisersProphecy needs a defining role instead of just a brick. Either make it a HAM spitter or change the Laser Cap bonus into an optimal range bonus.Ferox is a Hybrid boat so remove/reduce the launcher slots and buff PG while slightly nerfing CPU. Hybrid rebalance required before really messing with the shipCyclone needs a slight CPU buffBrutix wait till after hybrid fixMyrmidon remove one high slot and two turret hard points. Give it another 25MBit Drone bandwidth and another 50m3 dronebay

Strategic CruisersTengu/Proteus: Remove the CPU Efficiency Gate subsystem and replace with a specialising subsystem. The CPU-EG is completely useless. Give the Proteus another drone sub so it can field 5 heavies when using this and the other two drone rigs. Give the Tengu a Hybrid subsystem (tracking or something)Legion is a bit of a fail boat with slot layouts. Review required.There is more but no room...

Black Ops: Has already been discussed

Marauders: Give them something new. The tractor beam bonus is now very underwhelming with the Noctis now around

Active Tanking Bonuses on ships: This bonus has a fair bit of disparity when compared to a resist bonus. The repair bonus should carry to REMOTE REPAIR RECEIVED. This would mean these ships don't "lose" a bonus when buffer fitted for fleet work

Capital Ships: Dreads and SC's need a little rework and introduce Extra Large rigs for Caps to increase cos

Posted - 2011.05.05 23:40:00 -
[156]Edited by: Orboro Naheema on 05/05/2011 23:47:27I would like capitals and super-capitals to be redesigned with a combined fleet composition in mind. There are several ideas/proposals floating around. I liked the one that discussed the creation of separate fighter/fighter bomber and sub-cap drone bays. The idea was to decrease the amount of large to small drones that a super-carrier could vomit forth. I did not like the idea of decreasing the amount of fighters and fighter bombers they could carry. I see this as their role. Some other ideas I have been tossing around include:

a) Remove all of the logistics bonuses from super-carriers. Carriers should be your capital logistics backbone.

b) Give super-carriers another role. This could be in the form of ship bonuses that act as command bonuses for capital ships only (dread, carrier, super-carrier, and titan only).

c) Allow dreads to move under normal power in siege mode. They are still disallowed from warping and jumping. (Although I would be amenable to allowing them to warp around on grid as long as the energy to warp increased substantially with distance. This would allow them to warp around tactically on grid, but they would not be able to warp any further without dropping out of siege mode.)

d) Allow dreads to receive remote repair from capital repair modules only. Place a diminishing returns on this repair amount.

e) Triage mode will still paralyze carriers. I know you think this is unfair, but it would add a layer of tactical depth. Triage and root yourself in place but receive more repair? or forgo triage and stay mobile. It would also make carriers that do not make good triage platforms viable.

I would like to see combined fleets of carriers, dreadnoughts, super-carriers, and titans slugging it out. You can do what ever you have to in order to make this possible. Please.

Posted - 2011.05.06 00:44:00 -
[157]
A quick thing I would like to see changed. Is when you fleet up with an orca the orca pilot has to reconfigure the orca to allow fleet to use it. Great but it sucks if you are in a mining op and the orca has to drop off load in station. The orca has to re reconfigure ship every time. If not the pilots in other corps trying to put things in has to see the stupid message everytime they put in. Can you make it so that if an orca pilot is in a fleet he or she can configure it once as long as that person is in the fleet. or just get ride of the message that pops up. Inform me once and check a box and not have to see it again. Miner and Orca pilot help me out!!!! and get this fixed.

Originally by:GynocerosSome good ideas and some ones some i dont totally agree with

1. the tier system is there for a reason and its not just for isk cost... you really want a bb to have the same hp as a moa/caracal? so the tier system should stay... but i will agree on simular ships that are combat should have the tier system removed... Like Moa/Caracal or drake/Ferox...

2. cant argue with that, suported

3. i like that you liked my idea about atry blasters... but dont forget rails too they also blow... the other day i was in a drake fleet in a rail thorax and i was doing something 300 alpha on the other drakes... either increase alpha on rails or make them high dps long range autocannonsI also like the idea of a 5 second reload time...

4. both us think gallente need to be faster/agile but i still think gallente should be armor...for me the way to achieve faster gallente should be in bonuses to the mwd... 1st reduce the mass of all gallente ships2nd change the cap reduction bonus and 10% to fall off to a mwd mass addition reduction... make it 10% per lev... now you have fast agile gallente ships3. remove the tanking bonus from gallente ships and replace with w 10% to armor amount per lev... now you wont have to put on so many trimarks/1600's to havge good ehp...

4. if you are going to fix the speed isues and boost blasters/rails there is no need to fix fitting issues as it would more then likely make gallente op...

1) Eliminating the tier system does not mean that all ships have to have the same stats. Ships can have different stats based on role.

3) I left off rails because I have no idea what to do with them. Frankly, I think the problem with them might be more about the nature of combat in the current game than rails themselves. They are the long range, low alpha weapon in the age of medium range, high-alpha engagements. They need some love, but I can't really be arsed to think about the balance of a weapon system I'll never use.

4) There's more than one way to skin this cat, but your proposed changes are an enormous buff just to overcome the incompatibility between armor buffer tanking and the need for agility. Also, no T1 ships can have both an armor bonus and an agility bonus without compromising DPS, so changing multiple bonuses to fix the problem is only going to work for T2 ships, if at all.

5) Regarding fitting upgrades, there are actually only a few ships where this is even a problem, the Hyperion being the worst. The Megathron has good fitting capability for it's role, for example. I'm not suggesting a fitting buff to the whole lineup.

Destroyers are nearly as big as cruisers- as such, why don't they tank nearly as good as cruisers?

The argument for signature radius has been discussed for quite some time, but it seems kind of silly that a ship as big as a rupture should have a signature the size of a shield tanked rifter.

It might be better to increase the destroyer's slots, fitting, and str/arm/sh hp to that of a cruiser class vessel, while continuing to give it bonuses to small class weapons.

This would do a number of things (aside from making level 1/2 missions extremely easy) A)It gives the destroyer survivability in fleets B)Makes it not only the bane of frigates, but makes it significantly harder for that dramiel to solo killand C)This would increase the usefulness of the destroyer without interfering with larger ship's ability to kill/hit them- thus avoiding low sig thrasher gangs becoming the new anti everything.

Quote:Guided missiles (Light/Heavy/Cruise) need to have their flight time nerfed. To compensate. New modules similar to tracking enhancers and tracking computers to be introduced to bump the range back up. This would go a long way to balancing out the Drake/Tengu problem but won't remove the strategic and tactical value of the weapons either.

Idiocy.Why did you even mention lights and cruises when it's painfully obvious that all you want to do with this is nerf heavies?

If this were to go through, guided missiles (mainly heavies and especially cruises) would need a significant increase in speed, as they already suffer major flight time problems at long distances.

In fact, buff cruise missile velocity full stop. No weapon should be relegated to PVE for being so worthless._________________________________

Originally by:Marconus OrionI detest that the following statement is true in this game:

"Why fly a,b,c when x,y,z exists?"

That applies to so many ships right now. So many that are simply inferior to other ships so they see no use at all. Granted you could name any ship and there will be some die hard out there who had some mild success with it once out of a hundred times and swears by it but lets be realistic here.

This sums it up rather nicely for me, personally. By now CCP should have enough feedback to read on this issue to take them well into the next century.

Originally by:Marconus OrionI detest that the following statement is true in this game:

"Why fly a,b,c when x,y,z exists?"

That applies to so many ships right now. So many that are simply inferior to other ships so they see no use at all. Granted you could name any ship and there will be some die hard out there who had some mild success with it once out of a hundred times and swears by it but lets be realistic here.

There will always be a "best" unless things are totally homogenous. Even small differences create this problem, especially once you factor in the fact that eve players min/max.

There will never be a solution to the "problem", as you state it, unless everything becomes completely static-- including player tactics, stratagies,fittings, and seemingly unrelated game mechanics.

This leads me to wonder if A)you, and the people who have +1'd you, are really that terrible at thinking or B)your troll threads with innane comments because your bored.

Posted - 2011.05.07 03:57:00 -
[164]Edited by: President Nyxon on 07/05/2011 04:03:12There is little that can be done to make cruisers competitive against battlecruisers. The tier 2's are miles ahead of everything else, they fit more weaponry and have the modules to fit a decent tank.

Cruisers can't fit as many weapons as battlecruisers to begin with, and they can't boost the weapons they can fit AND carry a decent tank. Since battlecruisers don't take much more in the way of skills, it really just comes down to people being willing to pay five-ten times more for a hull that's more effective. The only T1 cruisers that actually serve a purpose in fleet fights are blackbirds.

Originally by:Marconus OrionI detest that the following statement is true in this game:

"Why fly a,b,c when x,y,z exists?"

That applies to so many ships right now. So many that are simply inferior to other ships so they see no use at all. Granted you could name any ship and there will be some die hard out there who had some mild success with it once out of a hundred times and swears by it but lets be realistic here.

Quoted for infinite truth.

Especially when the fixes for a lot of them are so pathetically simple* I have to wonder exactly how CCP's dev team structure works (or doesn't) when it comes to ship balance.

It took them what, two years to buff rockets? I forgot exactly how many pages that thread reached but it went on far longer than it should've.

*Seriously, see my earlier post. For a lot of tech 1 ships it's just a matter of adding some more fitting and a slot or two._________________________________

Originally by:President NyxonThere is little that can be done to make cruisers competitive against battlecruisers. The tier 2's are miles ahead of everything else, they fit more weaponry and have the modules to fit a decent tank.

Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed to tier 1 levels. Cut their EHP, fittings and slots. Tier 2 BCs simultaneously step on the toes of cruisers, BS and close-range HACs too much - they're too flexible, too good at too many things, and obsolete too many other ships, not least of all the tier 1 BCs.

Originally by:President NyxonThere is little that can be done to make cruisers competitive against battlecruisers. The tier 2's are miles ahead of everything else, they fit more weaponry and have the modules to fit a decent tank.

Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed to tier 1 levels. Cut their EHP, fittings and slots. Tier 2 BCs simultaneously step on the toes of cruisers, BS and close-range HACs too much - they're too flexible, too good at too many things, and obsolete too many other ships, not least of all the tier 1 BCs.

Dude what ever you are smoking, can i have some?

also BC > cruisers so of course they are going to step on their toes.

Next, a good hac pilot who knows what they are doing will have no problem taking down a BC

third, a good bs pilot can take down bc's easily too assuming the pilot is compitent.

There is nothing wrong with bc. In the 4 years the tier 2 have been around nothing has needed tweaking, they are very balanced.

Originally by:Ai Mei..There is nothing wrong with bc. In the 4 years the tier 2 have been around nothing has needed tweaking, they are very balanced.

You fly the Prophecy and Ferox a lot do you? How about the not quite so useless Brutix or crystal loving Cyclone?

Gypsio may be shooting sparrows with cannons, but he sort of has a point.Would personally take a bit off the tier2 and add a little to tier1 to close the chasm between them and give a little more breathing room for tier1 BS.

Posted - 2011.05.08 04:49:00 -
[169]
The problem with the tier system is not that it exists, it is that some of the roles within that system need revising or adjusting.

Case in point: The Assault cruisers, Omen and Maller, Thorax and Vexor, Rupture and Stabber, Caracal and Moa.

I think everyone can agree here that the only serious problems here are the 2 amarr assault cruisers and the Moa. The Moa's problem is probably a lot more related to railguns then anything else but the biggest problem of all is the fact that the Omen and Maller suck.

The removal of the tier system will not fix this imbalance. In my mind's eye, the Omen is the ganker, and the Maller is the tanker.

So the Omen needs to be adjusted so that it does more damage, and in this case the fix is simple, give it enough grid and cpu to fill its high slots without gimping the rest of the ship or adjust the medium sized lasers fitting so the same result can be achieved.

The Maller is slightly harder, it needs to be able to tank but at the same time it needs to do less damage then the Omen. The bonuses are fine here, so all that is needed in my view, is either the replacement of 2 of its turret hardpoints with missile launcher hardpoints or move a high slot to a low slot and remove a turret hardpoint.

The latter would be my preferred fix, simply because it would give an extra slot to enable the pilot to fit more of a buffer and would allow more of the ships capacitor to be used for tanking.

Whether or not those changes are worth doing or not, is not important, but it shows that the ships balance issues can be fixed without removing the tier system.

The second biggest issue with "tiers" in my eye is the Battlecruisers.

When CCP introduced the Tier 2 Battlecruisers, they were billed as gank boats, what did we get? gank boats that completely obsoleted the tier 1 Battlecruisers in pretty much every way.

How to fix this?

The big one, the Drake: remove that shield resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus or launcher rate of fire bonus and make it a true mini raven.

The Myrmidon: In this case Gallente already have a pretty decent gank BC, the Brutix.(sure it suffers from the usual blaster boat issues) So what i would do is make it the tank BC, (since thats the general design of Gallente drone boats anyway) so don't hate me but i would remove the rep bonus from the brutix and replace it with either a tracking bonus or some kind of speed/agility bonus to help it get into range.

The Myrm could then be left pretty much untouched as it follows pretty much every other rule in the drone boat philosophy.(possible change could be a high slot to a low slot but it already has one less turret then the brutix and no hybrid damage bonus, so not sure this is needed)

So there you go, you don't have to scrap the teir system to fix T1 ship balance, you just have to tweak a few of the ships, most of the problems with the T1 ships themselves stem from bigger issues, like hybrids sucking, or damps making the celestis suck. Take a look at the bigger issues before you try to throw a slegehammer at something a claw hammer would fix.---------------------------------

First of all, the claim that "BC > cruisers" is kinda missing the point. Bigger isn't supposed to be better in Eve, it's supposed to be "different". The problem with BCs in general is that they're effectively better than cruisers at being cruisers, as they use the same size weapons, but have many more slots and weapons. The problem of slots is particularly apparent when it comes to what should be the definitive advantage of cruisers, mobility. The additional slots, and much greater ease of fitting, of a Hurricane allows you to fit it so that it's faster, more agile and has more EHP and DPS then a Rupture. That should not be possible. The result is obvious - there's little reason to fly cruisers and most people just go straight to BCs instead. Hence the spam of BCs everywhere.

HACs versus BCs. I'm talking here about the close-range HACs, the ones that nobody ever sees, because it's much more sensible to fly a tier 2 BC instead. Suckrilege and Diemost are the classic offenders. Even in armour-HAC gangs, built to take advantage of the T2 resists, these are rarely seen, with people clearly choosing Scorch instead. It's the same problem - the Hurricane and Drake and better than Deimoses and Sacrileges at being Deimoses and Sacrileges.

People complain about destroyers being weak, and they've got a point. But quite frankly, destroyers as a class, relative to other classes, are better balanced than tier 2 BCs are. Destroyers have a specific role while tier 2 BCs are just Swiss Army knives - too good at too many things. And this is reflected in their popularity, both for PVE and PVP. Within their class, the tier 2 BCs are pretty well balanced, but the class itself is overpowered.

Quote:The Maller is slightly harder, it needs to be able to tank but at the same time it needs to do less damage then the Omen. The bonuses are fine here, so all that is needed in my view, is either the replacement of 2 of its turret hardpoints with missile launcher hardpoints or move a high slot to a low slot and remove a turret hardpoint.

... You do realise "no-dps brick that screams 'bait'" is not a role, right?And did I read that correctly? You want to give it a split weapon system? Are you really that stupid? Do you actually think its dps isn't low enough already?

Quote:remove that shield resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus or launcher rate of fire bonus and make it a true mini raven.

Rate of fire I could certainly live with, velocity is worthless.

Quote:i would remove the rep bonus from the brutix and replace it with either a tracking bonus or some kind of speed/agility bonus to help it get into range.

Liking it.

Quote:So there you go, you don't have to scrap the teir system to fix T1 ship balance

Umm, sorry but that still wouldn't be fixing things. Too many ships are terrible at too many things for no better reason than their tier, and buffing them as was done with the Brutix basically is removing tier discrepancies.You didn't even mention what to do with the Omen, which has the blindingly obvious problem of not even having enough grid to fit guns/plate/MWD.

A large number of the lower tier ships need a buff in various ways (see my post on page 3(?)) to make them workable. For many of them, these buffs are very straightforward.

Also RE:Gypsio's entire post - umm, basically yeah. The Hurricane imbalance is what sticks out most to me. One time me and a friend added it up. At the current prices of the region, with a modest budget fit, a Cyclone would've cost 4mil more than a Rupture factoring insurance - and that's when I gave up on cruisers altogether._________________________________

First of all, the claim that "BC > cruisers" is kinda missing the point. Bigger isn't supposed to be better in Eve, it's supposed to be "different". The problem with BCs in general is that they're effectively better than cruisers at being cruisers, as they use the same size weapons, but have many more slots and weapons. The problem of slots is particularly apparent when it comes to what should be the definitive advantage of cruisers, mobility. The additional slots, and much greater ease of fitting, of a Hurricane allows you to fit it so that it's faster, more agile and has more EHP and DPS then a Rupture. That should not be possible. The result is obvious - there's little reason to fly cruisers and most people just go straight to BCs instead. Hence the spam of BCs everywhere.

Well, I almost agree everything you just said except that Battlecruisers not only outperform by far cruisers but some of them can also easily outperform a battleship.

Flying Gallente with 1 of my chars and all I can say, despite all roxxors demi gods better than every one, is that people must keep in mind that you fly a battlecruiser with less than 5M sp and at this point the reason wy people fly them it's just because with same skills, just about 6hours they can fly something that spit 3 times the cruiser dps and tanks tons more dps (at that lvl).

Now why people fly mostly BC's to pvp? -there are a few ones:

-hurricanes outperforming most of any tiers BS thanks to those stupid guns being used by the most fastest race in the game can dictate distance, dps almost like his lasers counterpart at the same distance(thx drones), have a better dmg projection and weapon tracking at point blanck than blasters...

There is no reason for me when I fly with my Gallente char that I fly my trimarked/plated mega and his poor performances (all T2/faction fit) when I can fly an Hurricane Meta4 and T2 fitted that does much better in 90% of all situation I deal with where my char lives (0.3/0.2)

you say bigger doesn't means better, well I'm sorry I can't agree. My hurricane full fit/rigged costs me cheaper than my 3T1 trimarks and my 2 rolled tungsten plates and now you're going to tell me story's about "Role", I'm ok, lets do it, what's the role of a battleship in this game? -mission or fly only in fleets with over 10 men without fear the first Hurricane or Hac (not the deiworst oc)?

If you really think it should be like this, bigger = +fragile then what's the purpose of supercaps? Dev's alts and stone age players "I win" button? -WOW, need to play that class too

DestroyersWas :Role Bonuses:Penalty: -25% Rate Of Fire for all turretsBonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small projectile turretsIdea :Keep everything, but add +25% tracking (yes I know, most of the destros already have this bonus, but they need a second one because hmmm you can't fit webs/tracking computers AND you don't want to be in web range).+25% in shield&armor&hull.

Cruisers-25% for all cruisers sigs.Change the warp speed to 4.5 au.I want a cruiser, not a BC with less slots. We have freg roams, bcs/hacs roams and nothing between. I would like to see destros/cruisers roams, fast but with still a bit of firepower.

BlastersWhere is ma space shotgan ? I wanna ma space shotgan.+20% damage.-10% rof (or +10%, well a lower rate of fire).-5% pwg.+5% tracking.Blasters boats = dps boats. You need a bit of help (web drones, or mates with webs) but at least you can pewpew.

RailgunsSo. What about a new role for rails ? Okay long range, but I could a different weapon that isn't "laza" or "budda budda". What about weapons designed to kill sub-ships ? Like the good 'old assault missile launchers.+5% tracking-50% weapon signature.Small rails are not that terrible, it won't impact (unless you're a pod hunter ). An eagle would be a great threat for intis. An hyperion will melt a HAC which isn't close enough.

Posted - 2011.05.08 22:22:00 -
[174]
One crucial change to destroyers:- Reduce number of turrets to 4 or 5- Remove ROF penalty, add or remove from damage bonuses to keep them at the dps levels they have now.

Result: Destroyers no longer cost as much as cruisers via having to fit twice as many guns._________________________________

Seperate Long and Short Range Turrets and Launchers, requiring different Ammunition for Each. Short Range should have High Tracking/High ROF/Moderate Damage, Long Range should have Moderate Tracking/Moderate ROF/High Damage. DPS should be about the same for both.

Move Dreadnoghts to a Role between Battleships and Carriers. Give them Command Bonuses, 5 Large Turrets or Launchers; add +10% to ROF, +10% to Damage per Level; Give them 200 m3 Drone Bay and 125 Mb/s Bandwidth so they can adequately field Sentries or Heavy Combat/EWAR Drones; Reduce EHP and Size accordingly, scaled to about 150% of a large Battleship.

Quote: ... You do realise "no-dps brick that screams 'bait'" is not a role, right?

Thousands of Drake users would disagree :)

Quote: And did I read that correctly? You want to give it a split weapon system? Are you really that stupid? Do you actually think its dps isn't low enough already?

Having now compared the 2 ships on EFT, i now see that the Maller's DPS is indeed lower then the Omen's anyway, so my changes are no longer needed, (posting at 5am for the lose).

However, isn't that kind of the point, the Omen is the ganker, its supposed to deal more DPS then the maller, or else why fly the Omen in the first place? If you can get the Maller to out - DPS the Omen, then the Omen is obsolete.

Reading the complaints on this very board, most people complain that the omen hasn't got enough grid and CPU to fit a full rack of lasers, and well almost anything else.

I checked on EFT and this is indeed true. Now as to wether there should be enough grid to fit an MWD to it, well that then goes down the line of "do we want every ship to be able to fit an MWD?" The correct answer is it depends on where you want to fly it. Or "Do we want every ship to be flown in the same way?" CCP has already said no to this, which is why they do not want to buff the Nighthawks grid to fit an MWD.

Runs out of grid and CPU if you try to swap the Afterburner to an MWD, but with standard it can hit out to 15km anyway and you can change crystals in about a second once you are closer.

The biggest weakness is the fact that you have now got 4.75 CPu and 58.5 grid to fill that last medium slot.

Admittedly using less T2 stuff can make things easier, but if your an experienced pilot thats what you would be using most of the time.

If you ask me, the biggest problem with the Omen is that they gave it the 5th turret and they did not adjust its grid and CPU accordingly, or if they did, did not give it anywhere near enough to make use of that hardpoint. That is why I suggested giving it the extra grid and CPU in my last post.

Quote:Rate of fire I could certainly live with, velocity is worthless.

All the missile velocity bonus would do is make it into a long range missile boat, but then maybe we have enough of those already?

Posted - 2011.05.09 01:33:00 -
[178]
From my experience in Eve, I feel following ships needs to be rethinked.

1. Eos

As it stands now, this ship is really ..., hmm... I dare say that Eos needs to be deleted in its current status. I understand it is a fleet commandship and it is not meant for omfgod dps. But with its ganklink bonus nearly useless, it has nothing.

And it is a CreoDron ship. CreoDron, I'd like to repeat.

First of all, I would like to see it to have 125 drone bandwidth. In doing so, it must have its turrent hardpoint decreased to 3. It shall not have drone damage bonus. Modify its current 15+ drone bay bonus to 50+.

In addition, its current 7 / 4 / 6 could be 6 / 5 / 6 (or even 6 / 5 / 5) which puts it in line of other droneboats where they have fairly balanced slot layouts.

With this change, Eos will be a gimped drone boat, but at least it will have enough drone bay for waves of drones for support in a small gang.

2. Dominix

Nothing really wrong with it in its current status, but may I suggest for EVE designers to rethink its current shape? It really needs a whole new design and appearance.

Just my 2isk. You can tell that I am a drone user and a gallentne pilot.

You mean the fools who take PVE Drakes into PVP? Because the view the Drake is nothing but bait originates from somewhere around 2006 and is hopelessly out of date.

I'll repeat this for you:Low-dps brick is not a PVP role. You don't win fights by sitting there with double the EHP and no dps and having only idiots engage you because you may as well have a sign over your head saying "bait".Personally I'm in favour of the missile boat idea that's been floating around: Namely give the Maller HAMs and a drone bay. There, nicely differentiated from the Omen.

Quote:Now as to wether there should be enough grid to fit an MWD to it, well that then goes down the line of "do we want every ship to be able to fit an MWD?

Yes. MWD is mandatory for 90%* of PVP ships. Something being completely unable to fit one alongside the lowest tier of tank and gank is utterly unacceptable. My Abaddon can outrun an average afterburning cruiser.

By the way your fit is an utter joke. Nice 14 mil damage control you've got there. I should've mentioned it needs a CPU boost as well as a significant grid boost.

Quote:All the missile velocity bonus would do is make it into a long range missile boat

If anything we have too many of them, considering long range missileboat is a seriously debatable role, at best. There's a reason HML cerbs and cruise Ravens are not popular in gangs. This is why in the current state of the game, a velocity bonus is a massive nerf.RoF would be an acceptable tradeoff but there still exists the possibility of it being overpowered.

*The 10% applying to some frigates and the odd tech 3.There are other workable AB fits but they're incredibly nichT and frequently require gang links to work._________________________________

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.